Daily News

Will New Hampshire Restore Traditional Marriage? (4035)

A bill would turn back the 2009 law that legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ in the state. If the bill passes, it would mark the first time that a legislature will have reversed itself on the contentious issue. This comes amid a host of state bills on the issue.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — New Hampshire State Rep. David Bates, R-Windham, says he wants to restore the real definition of marriage in the Granite State.

“We have, right now, an illegitimate definition of marriage in our state,” said Bates, the lead sponsor of a bill that would turn back the 2009 law that legalized same-sex “marriage” in his state. If the bill passes, it would mark the first time that a legislature will have reversed itself on the contentious issue.

The New Hampshire Legislature is expected to vote later this month on Bates’ bill, which appears to have enough support to pass the Republican-controlled state House and Senate. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who opposed same-sex “marriage” before reversing his position and signing the law in 2009, has vowed to veto the bill.

“I’m sure (the bill) will go to the governor. I’m sure he will veto it. We’ll deal with that when the time comes,” said Bates, adding that it was preliminary to speculate whether there is enough support in the legislature to override a veto.

“A super majority of 67% is difficult to achieve. It’s difficult to know what will happen between now and then,” Bates told the Register.

The situation in New Hampshire is occurring during an active point in the national debate. On March 1, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley signed a law that made his state the eighth in the nation to legalize same-sex “marriage.” In February, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, signed a bill legalizing same-sex “marriage” there. Opponents in both states are seeking referendums to nullify the laws.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, vetoed a bill last month passed by the state Legislature. Voters in Minnesota and North Carolina will vote later this year on whether to enact constitutional bans on same-sex “marriage.”

“This battle is going on from coast to coast. But, by definition, same-sex ‘marriage’ makes no sense. It’s an oxymoron,” said Bates, who takes issue with his bill being framed as a “repeal.” He argues that his legislation is rather a restoration of marriage as the distinct union of a man and woman.

“It’s important to not adopt the carefully crafted language of our opponents,” Bates said.

“There is no question there are very real, dangerous consequences of us adopting, as a matter of public policy, an affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle. It’s a short step from there for the government to prohibit opposition and to prosecute people for so-called hate crimes for speaking out against it.

“That is where this is all leading.”

Since 2009, New Hampshire state records show that 1,861 same-sex couples had obtained marriage licenses through the end of January. Bates’ bill would not invalidate those legal marriages, but would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions moving forward.

The Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire has thrown its support behind Bates’ bill, though it would restore the civil unions that same-sex couples in New Hampshire received before the 2009 law. The diocese said the bill was an “incremental improvement” toward the goal of the “full restoration of justice” and urged Catholics to contact their local representatives.

Bishop Peter Libasci of Manchester wrote a letter on the feast of the Holy Family in which he warned against efforts to redefine marriage.

“The wisdom of many millennia of human experience is not to cast aside truth, but to uphold it if society is to prosper and find peace,” Bishop Libasci wrote.

“In this regard, I am encouraged that the New Hampshire General Court will have the opportunity in (2012) to vote to restore the traditional understanding of marriage, and I sincerely hope that the General Court will accomplish this important task. And if such will be the case, then we must, as a people dedicated to the common good, ‘be there’ as our young people say, for married couples and their family bond.”

About 200 people attended a Feb. 7 rally at the State House in Concord to support Bates’ bill. Among those who addressed the crowd was State House Speaker William O’Brien, a Republican from Mont Vernon who is also a key backer of Bates’ legislation.

“There are those who say it takes a village to raise a child — it doesn’t. It takes a mother and a father,” O’Brien said.

However, Bates’ opponents say political will and public opinion are on their side.

A group called Standing Up for New Hampshire Families, which supports same-sex “marriage,” noted on its website that seven New Hampshire newspaper editorial boards have weighed in against overturning the 2009 law. The group has also organized phone banks to mobilize support and call upon people to contact their local lawmakers to vote against Bates’ bill.

A Feb. 7 poll conducted by WMUR and the University of New Hampshire indicated that 59% of the state’s citizens supported maintaining legalized same-sex “marriage.”

“We’ve now had a full year’s worth of polls on the question of repealing our marriage-equality law, and the result is always the same — voters do not want the legislature messing with this law,” said Craig Stowell, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and a registered Republican who serves as the co-chairman of Standing Up for New Hampshire Families.

“This is not a close call. By a consistent margin of nearly two-to-one, voters are telling legislators to leave this popular law alone and get back to work on the economic challenges of our day,” Stowell said.

New Hampshire state Rep. Seth Cohn, a Republican with libertarian leanings who opposes the repeal, told The New York Times that he thought Bates’ bill would harm his party’s chance of keeping its legislative majority after this year’s elections.

“I think it’s going to backlash against the Republicans, who, in the face of the polls, are choosing not to believe the average person is okay with this situation,” Cohn told the Times.

Bates countered that voters, when given the opportunity, have always decided to maintain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Thirty states currently have constitutional amendments that prevent marriage from being redefined.

As Bates said, “That shows the majority of people actually want marriage to remain what it has always been.”

Comments

Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal, valid or recognized.

Posted by Jason Galvez on Wednesday, Mar 7, 2012 1:47 AM (EDT):

Civil marriage is not a religious institution but a legal one. Civil marriage has always been a legal or law of the land question, since we let the non-religious marry, and pretty much always have. How about the many faiths that interpret the sacred text to that of a more inclusive God and perform same-gender marriages. Are we not infringing on their religious freedoms?” http://jasonjdotbiz.wordpress.com/

Posted by Maggie on Tuesday, Mar 6, 2012 5:21 PM (EDT):

@cowalker .Your question of criminal penalties is up to the secular law, not the Church. However, the question of what is valid matrimony is not a state issue but a religious one. The Church views justice in light of natural law, an unchanging absolute, not through the eyes of modern secular man. So for many in today’s society its policies seem strange or at worst hate filled. This is not the case though, it never has been, the mission of the Church is to save souls not let them wallow in secularism.

@Frank - You left out one important point that is left to secular law: civil marriage. What we are talking about here is secular law / civil marriage. NOT holy matrimony. Christianity exists within America and it’s laws, and not the other way around. To be otherwise, implies a theocracy - America never has been, and never will be a theocracy.

Posted by Rob Tisinai on Tuesday, Mar 6, 2012 4:20 PM (EDT):

Rep Bates says: “It’s a short step from there for the government to prohibit opposition and to prosecute people for so-called hate crimes for speaking out against it.”

Bates is simply wrong here. In the US, hate crime laws do not make anything illegal. They simply provide enhanced penalties for things that are already illegal (things are traditional crimes) motivated by animosity against the victim’s sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

That’s right: hate crime laws don’t make anything illegal. And hate crime laws do not make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality. It’s a shame that Bates is repeating scare-tactic falsehoods.

It’s an even bigger shame that a Catholic newspaper is repeating those falsehoods without correcting them. The Register is betraying the trust of its readers.

Posted by katie on Saturday, Mar 3, 2012 4:36 PM (EDT):

This whole idea of same sex marriage is unbelievable! There is an assault on tradition,and the laws that have been been in place since the laws have been written. We are on a slippery slope to allow a kinky type of sex. Our society is really sick if we are ok with this same sex marriage feast.

Posted by Matt on Saturday, Mar 3, 2012 12:25 PM (EDT):

It’s irritating to see such politicians along the lines of Rep Seth Cohn, who simply follow what they see as the Zeitgeist in making decisions.

Posted by Ed M of Ct. on Saturday, Mar 3, 2012 11:31 AM (EDT):

Muslim and Mormon heretics having multiple wives is also a Sexual orientation. So is marrying your sister or your pet dog or cat.The US Supreme court in the 1800’s pointed out that the morals of our nation preclude the then Utah(Mormon) territory from legalizing Polygamy. That Supreme Court ruling is why the Mormans in Utah etc. banned Polygamy in the first place. Homosexuals have the same rights as Polygamists to have civil unions and same sex atrocity they call marriage.

Posted by Quo Vadis on Saturday, Mar 3, 2012 10:09 AM (EDT):

Go the brave of New Hampshire! I will pray for efforts to restore marriage. Women and children will be further harmed if we continue this absurd, relativist, gender-confused foolishness!

Posted by cowalker on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 9:10 PM (EDT):

Posted by Frank on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 3:37 PM (EST):

“@cowalker .Your question of criminal penalties is up to the secular law, not the Church.”

Yes, the question of criminal penalties is up to the secular law, but the Catholic church is very active in trying to influence secular law-making. I have seen the comment by Catholics that gay couples should not need civil marriage because they already have civil unions. Is abolishing civil unions going to be the next goal for the Catholic church in America? And if they were successful in doing that, would they then lobby state governments to outlaw sex between people of the same gender with criminal penalties following conviction? How far does the church in America want secular law to go in regulating people’s private lives?

Posted by Frank on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 5:37 PM (EDT):

@cowalker .Your question of criminal penalties is up to the secular law, not the Church. However, the question of what is valid matrimony is not a state issue but a religious one. The Church views justice in light of natural law, an unchanging absolute, not through the eyes of modern secular man. So for many in today’s society its policies seem strange or at worst hate filled. This is not the case though, it never has been, the mission of the Church is to save souls not let them wallow in secularism.

Posted by JuanMateo78 on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 5:27 PM (EDT):

Pray for victory! Justice says maintain and strengthen families and marriage not weaken them by cheapening and making a mockery of marriage with “gay” ones. The Catholic Church must remain true in this age until these times get their wits about them.

Posted by Rick DeLano on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 4:26 PM (EDT):

The Church need not look to the penalization of homosexual acts, coworker.

God has already seen to that.

The Church must of course act to preserve civilization against the appalling disaster of enshrining homosexual disorders as the ontological equivalent of marriage.

Such an incredibly wanton attempt to shake one’s fist at biology itself, to imagine that we can impose by legislative fiat what amounts to a repeal of the fact that our species is constituted in two genders…..

Well.

It is only possible in a civilization which has gone far, far around the bend.

But this battle is worth fighting.

If we lose, then at least the future generations will know we attempted to rescue this dying civilization, even if it turns out to have been at the cost of our own liberty.

Posted by cowalker on Friday, Mar 2, 2012 3:15 PM (EDT):

“The Diocese of Manchester in New Hampshire has thrown its support behind Bates’ bill, though it would restore the civil unions that same-sex couples in New Hampshire received before the 2009 law. The diocese said the bill was an ‘incremental improvement’ toward the goal of the “full restoration of justice” and urged Catholics to contact their local representatives.”

Is that the official church position? That justice demands the refusal of civil unions to gay couples? Is that the ultimate goal of Catholic lobbying on the issue of homosexuality? Or do they also want to bring back criminal penalties for homosexual behavior?

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.